Types of Consumer Class Actions Violating your consumer rights

Did You Overpay For Title and Registration

In Cerbo v. Ford of Englewood the class action alleged that most major dealers in the State of New Jersey committed consumer fraud by overcharging for motor vehicle and title fees. The case was settled and settlement checks were mailed some time ago.

It has now been several years since the massive settlement in Cerbo v. Ford of Englewood, and it looks to be apparent that many of the dealerships who participated either directly, indirectly or tangentially in the settlement in the Cerbo v. Ford of Englewood case, which resulted in millions being paid to consumers and attorneys, have very short memories. On a limited basis, certain dealerships are apparently continuing to overcharge for title and registration.

After the Cerbo v. Ford of Englewood settlement, the dealerships continued to overcharge; however, many of the larger and more reputable dealerships implemented a refund policy: after you purchased the vehicle a refund check was calculated based on the exact amount of overcharge for title and insurance. This title and registration overcharge was then refunded to the consumers so as to share compliance with Cerbo v. Ford of Englewood and the legal standard established in that case. Title and registration fees are very simple, set forth on your registration, and there is a $60 or possibly a $85 charge on top of that registration fee for an issuance of a new title. You simply need to compare the documentation you receive from the dealership with the documentation you receive from the Division of Motor Vehicles. If there is a discrepancy between the title and registration fee that was paid to the Division of Motor Vehicles and the title and registration fee that was charged by the dealership, you should ask the dealership for a refund if you have not received same.

Over a long period of time the discrepancy of the title and registration fees collected by the dealership and paid to the Division of Motor Vehicles adds up. This is evidenced by the multi-million dollars that the settling dealerships paid to customers as part of the Cerbo v. Ford of Englewood settlement.

The Motor vehicle commission has a list of the possible title and registration charges including transfer of ownership. There is also such a thing as special title. There is a special fee for duplicate documents.

Rent a Center Class Actions

In Perez v. Rent a Center the plaintiffs alleged that Rent a Center was charging more than the interest rate permitted under New Jersey law for "rental" agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the agreements were actually purchase agreements and the interest rate was required to be disclosed under New Jersey law.

Construction Defects Class Actions: Consumer Lawyer

CLASS ACTION CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS

Construction claims or defective material claims are usually very well suited for class action treatment. It is common that builders use substantially similar processes for constructing multiple homes within a development. Frequently a developer, builder, subcontractor or other legal entity may construct thousands of homes with the same or substantially similar defect. The owner of the real estate development company or the general contractor will use the same subcontractor to install the sheetrock, plumbing, electric, and concrete, and in fact the entire frame might be built by a subcontractor. Frequently the construction of the home varies from what is required in the plans and/or the local ordinances.

The following are common construction defects: leaking roofs; failing roofs; inoperable windows; leaking windows; cracking windows; cracking concrete; unlevel concrete; failing walls; cracking walls; bowing walls; defective sheet-rock; defective plumbing; defective electrical equipment, and quite frequently all of the aforementioned might be installed in violation of local codes or ordinances. This could potentially be due to the negligence of the local housing inspectors, for which there is no remedy. In New Jersey, inspectors are exempt from lawsuits for improper or negligent inspection.

There are many examples of construction defects, class actions which are currently filed and/or have been settled.

There has been an extensive issue with regard to the installation and defects of Sheetrock manufactured in China. Other types of construction defects can be design deficiencies, material deficiencies and construction deficiencies or subsurface or geotechnical problems. Some companies have been named in class actions.

Ticket Master Class Actions

Class Actions have been filed against Ticket Master for the way they conducted business in routing internet activity and making tickets available to the public. Some of the cases have been resolved that were filed by the NJ Attorney General's Office.

Snapple Advertising Class Action (All Natural & High Fructose Corn Syrup)

Snapple Class Action

A class action against Snapple for making representations that the product was “all natural” was reinstated by the 3rd Circuit, US Court of Appeals. The Court specifically held that the federal rules on advertising regulations did not take away New Jersey’s right to permit claims against companies like Snapple. The plaintiff, Stacy Hulk, originally filed the claim in New Jersey State Superior Court, alleging that the representations that Snapple was “all natural” violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and was inappropriate advertising. The defendant, Snapple, requested that the federal court handle the matter rather than state court. Ultimately, the first level federal court dismissed the claim, holding that federal law did not permit such a claim by New Jersey law. This ruling means that the matter will proceed further.